Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Crossing The Line: Daubert, Dual Roles, And The Admissibility Of Forensic Mental Health Testimony, Sara Gordon Jan 2016

Crossing The Line: Daubert, Dual Roles, And The Admissibility Of Forensic Mental Health Testimony, Sara Gordon

Scholarly Works

Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals often testify as forensic experts in civil commitment and criminal competency proceedings. When an individual clinician assumes both a treatment and a forensic role in the context of a single case, however, that clinician forms a dual relationship with the patient—a practice that creates a conflict of interest and violates professional ethical guidelines. The court, the parties, and the patient are all affected by this conflict and the biased testimony that may result from dual relationships. When providing forensic testimony, the mental health professional’s primary duty is to the court, not to the patient, …


Boyd Briefs - April 2013, University Of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School Of Law Apr 2013

Boyd Briefs - April 2013, University Of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School Of Law

Boyd Briefs / Road Scholars

Boyd Briefs provides monthly information regarding the scholarly and other activities of the faculty of the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.


Is Truth In The Eye Of The Beholder? Objective Credibility Assessment In Refugee Status Determination, Michael Kagan Jan 2003

Is Truth In The Eye Of The Beholder? Objective Credibility Assessment In Refugee Status Determination, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

Credibility assessment is often the single most important step in determining whether people seeking protection as refugees can be returned to countries where they say they are in danger of serious human rights violations. Despite its importance, credibility-based decisions in refugee and asylum cases are frequently based on personal judgment that is inconsistent from one adjudicator to the next, unreviewable on appeal, and potentially influenced by cultural misunderstandings. Some of the people who need protection most are especially likely to have trouble convincing decision-makers that they should be believed.

This article sets out principles, standards, and criteria drawn from international …